|
Home of SSRE |
The Standard Scientific Research and Essay, SSRE
(ISSN:2310-7502) is owned and published by Standard Research
Journals. The mission is to significantly broaden the
knowledge base of its readers and in this sense, the journal
shall focus on only those papers that fall within its scope.
The Editorial Board
Standard Scientific Research and Essay is headed by Editors
and Editorial Board Members. The Editors and Editorial Board
is appointed by the Publication Committee of Standard
Research Journals. Editors serve a 2 year-term and Editorial
Board members also serve a 2 year-term. Board members are
chosen based on the journal’s need for representation from a
particular subject area in conjunction with the individual’s
commitment to maintaining high journal standards as
illustrated in objective and prompt reviews.
An Editorial Office Team is also appointed by the
publication committee to directly assist the editors and
editorial board members.
The Review Process
Standard Scientific Research and Essay editorial office
policy requires that each manuscript be reviewed by
individuals who are highly experienced and recognized in the
particular field of the submitted manuscript. The editorial
office contacts those reviewers that have been identified as
qualified and/or recommended by the authors. Authors are
encouraged to submit in their cover letters names of
individuals whom they feel are appropriate and qualified to
review their manuscript. Once potential reviewers agree to
read a manuscript they are given a 1 week time-frame to
complete the review process.
When the reviews are completed, a decision is made to either
accept the paper or give the authors the opportunity to
revise according to reviewers’ suggestions or to reject the
paper based on the reviewers’ criticisms and the editors’
opinion of the paper. In some instances it is necessary to
seek the opinion of other reviewers if further comment is
necessary to make a final decision. When an editor has
completed his decision on a manuscript, the decision letter
and reviewers’ comments are sent to the author. Any
questions or concerns regarding the editorial decision on
any manuscript must be made directly to Standard Scientific
Research and Essay editorial office. Revised manuscripts
are evaluated to determine if the author (s) have adequately
addressed and answered the critiques of the reviewers and
editors. Depending upon this evaluation, manuscripts may be
accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected. If a
paper is accepted, the paper is immediately sent to the
publication office and slotted for the next available issue.
SSRE tries to complete the review cycle in two weeks. This
time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision
work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is
acceptable.
Grounds for Declining a Manuscript
SSRE may decline a manuscript after it has completed the
review process. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards
of the journal are returned to authors with substantial
comments describing the basis for the decision. Manuscripts
may be rejected if it is felt that the findings are not
sufficiently novel, do not provide sufficient new insights,
do not contain enough new information, or are too
preliminary to warrant publication.
Guidelines
Obligations of an Editor
The editor should give unbiased consideration to all
manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its
merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief,
ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the
author(s).
The editor should process manuscripts promptly.
The editor has complete responsibility and authority to
accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it.
The editor may confer with reviewers for an evaluation to
use in making this decision.
The editor and the editorial staff should not disclose any
information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone
other than reviewers and potential reviewers.
The editor should respect the intellectual independence of
authors.
Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript
authored by the editor and submitted to the journal should
be delegated to some other qualified person. The editor
should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of
interest. If the editor chooses to participate in an ongoing
scientific debate within his journal, the editor should
arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial
responsibility.
The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived
conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include, but are not
limited to, handling papers from present and former
students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently
collaborated, and from those in the same institution.
Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations
disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an
editor's own research except with the consent of the author.
If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the
main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the
journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate
publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error
and, if possible, correcting it.
Obligations of Authors
An author's central obligation is to present a concise,
accurate account of the research performed as well as an
objective discussion of its significance.
A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to
public sources of information to permit the author's peers
to repeat the work.
An author should cite those publications that have been
influential in determining the nature of the reported work
and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work
that is essential for understanding the present
investigation. Information obtained privately, as in
conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third
parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work
without explicit permission from the investigator with whom
the information originated. Information obtained in the
course of confidential services, such as refereeing
manuscripts or grant applications, cannot be used without
permission of the author of the work being used.
Fragmentation of research papers should be avoided. A
scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group
of related systems should organize publication so that each
paper gives a complete account of a particular aspect of the
general study.
It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts
describing essentially the same research in more than one
journal of primary publication. Submitting the same
manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is
unethical and unacceptable.
An author should make no changes to a paper after it has
been accepted. If there is a compelling reason to make
changes, the author is obligated to inform the editor
directly of the nature of the desired change. Only the
editor has the final authority to approve any such requested
changes.
A criticism of a published paper may be justified; however,
in no case is personal criticism considered acceptable.
Only persons who have significantly contributed to the
research should be listed as authors. The corresponding
author attests that any others named as authors have seen
the final version of the paper and have agreed to its
submission for publication. Deceased persons who meet the
criterion for co-authorship should be included, with a
footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should
be listed as authors or co-authors. The author who submits a
manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of
having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and
none inappropriate.
Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts
Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential
step in the publication process, every scientist has an
obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks
the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript
should return it promptly to the editor.
A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the
quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual
independence of the authors. In no case is personal
criticism appropriate.
A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a
conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is
closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or
published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the
manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of
the conflict of interest or bias.
A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or
co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a
personal or professional connection if the relationship
would bias judgment of the manuscript.
A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a
confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor
discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons
from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the
identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the
editor.
Reviewers should explain and support their judgments
adequately so that editors and authors may understand the
basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation,
derivation, or argument had been previously reported should
be accompanied by the relevant citation.
A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite
relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to
the editor's attention any substantial similarity between
the manuscript under consideration and any published paper
or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished
information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a
manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of
the author
Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within ten (10)
days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more
time, they can contact the editor promptly so that authors
can be kept informed and, if necessary, assign alternate
reviewer
|
|
ISI- International Scientific Indexing
Open
Academic
Journals
Index
Directory of Research Journals Indexing
International Directory of Agriculture, Food and the Environment
Advanced Science Index (ASI)
CiteFactor - Directory of International Research Journals
InnoSpace - SJIF Scientific Journal Impact Factor
Technical Berlin University Library
Academic Search Alumni Edition
Academic Search Complete
Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture (AGORA)
Aquatic Science and Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA)
CNKI Scholar
Current Abstracts
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
EBSCO Discovery Service
EBSCO MainFile
EBSCOhost Connection
Expanded Academic Index
GEOBASE
GeoRef
J-Gate Portal
Meteorological and Geoastrophysical Abstracts
Online Access to Research in the Environment (OARE)
ProQuest Advanced Technologies and Aerospace Collection
ProQuest Earth Science Collection
ProQuest Natural Science Collection
ProQuest SciTech Collection
|
|
